The one stop source for breaking news, expert analysis, and podcasts on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares

Join ShareProphets at less than 2p per article

> All the big AIM fraud exposés

> 300 articles and podcasts a month

> Hot share tips

> Original investigations by our experienced team

> No ads, no click-bait, no auto-play videos

Find out more

SHOCKING: Nyota - the killer emails: Peterhouse has defrauded investors and misled them

By Tom Winnifrith, The Sheriff of AIM | Friday 21 July 2017

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Our exclusive Winnileaks service has obtained a series of emails from May 3rd 2017 which show that Peterhouse Corporate Finance has misled investors in Nyota Minerals (NYO) - these emails compound the damning evidence of the secret document I published on Wednesday. This is so damning that maybe even the useless clowns at AIM Regulation will take an interest.

Earlier this week I published the document that showed that the May 3 RNS from Nyota was untrue and that the discounted placing at 0.02p was thus done on a false premis. You can see that explosive note HERE.

The key point is that the "binding agreement" had Peterhouse paying £170,000 to buy out a loan note with the payment date April 28. So by May 3 Peterhouse was already in default on a deal with the RNS described as "binding". Peterhouse as broker to Nyota knew that RNS was misleading and as the shares surged to 0.1p afterwards investors had been duped.

The emails I have obtained now show that by May 3rd, if not earlier, Peterhouse was trying to change the payment terms. Under the "binding contract" it was buying out a convertible loan at a 15% discount to par. That was agreed. It was binding. But the emails now say that Peterhouse was demanding that the loan note be converted into shares before payment was made. That is a dramatic change and one that the "binding" contract did not include.

We also see in this email correspondence that Peterhouse is claiming that the cash from the buyout comes from "the investors who have put up the money" and it is they who have "insisted" on these changes. But the party in the documentation was Peterhouse itself.

So now we know that the 3rd May RNS was misleading in that Peterhouse was already five days in default on a "binding " deal and that within hours of that RNS going out - if not beforehand - Peterhouse was saying that the "binding deal" could not go ahead on the terms agreed - and which it was already in default. Surely that should have been announced.

Peterhouse as broker to Nyota and someone earning commission on a May 3 placing but as the party welshing on a binding deal is horribly conflicted. Of course Nomad Beaumont Cornish knew all about this but did nothing so it is equally in the merde. Over to the FCA and AIM regulation we go... .

Filed under:

Never miss a story.

This area of the site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.

More on NYO


Comments are turned off for this article.

Site by Everywhen